About

Vivos xPoint Investment Group, LLC v. Daniel Sindorf, #31131 (Briefing) (Vivos xPoint Investment Group, LLC, (Vivos) is a California company that owns a survival bunker complex outside the city of Edgemont. This community consists of 575 decommissioned military bunkers that were originally built in 1942 to store bombs and other military munitions. The bunkers sat empty from 1967 until Vivos bought the property and began advertising them as survival shelters that can be bought or leased and repurposed in preparation for a catastrophic event. Daniel Sindorf signed a 99-year lease with Vivos for a bunker in July 2020. Incorporated into the lease agreement is an addendum titled “Addendum B” that sets forth Vivos’ community rules and regulations. The lease reserves Vivos’ right to “change or modify” these community rules and regulations “at any time, subject to providing [tenants] with a minimum of Thirty (30) Days written notice.” In November 2021, Vivos modified a provision of the community rules and regulations relating to the use and possession of all weapons, firearms, and munitions. Specifically, the November 2021 modification added the words “or brandished” within the following provision: “No firearms or munitions may be discharged or brandished within the community, other than in designated and posted shooting area(s), subject to the posted rules and regulations at the shooting range(s).” Sindorf has acknowledged that he received timely notice of this rule change. In July 2023, Sindorf was involved in an altercation where he brandished a firearm in the presence of a Vivos employee and the employee’s girlfriend. While the underlying facts of the altercation are disputed, Sindorf asserts that he had withdrawn his firearm to protect himself from the couple’s three dogs. After learning about the incident, Vivos terminated Sindorf’s lease, claiming that his conduct violated the community rule against brandishing a firearm outside of a posted shooting area. Vivos then sent Sindorf a notice to quit and vacate the premises. Sindorf physically left the community, but he refused to give Vivos access to his bunker, which he kept locked and full of his personal property. Vivos initiated an eviction action against Sindorf to reclaim possession of his bunker. Before trial, Sindorf filed a motion for summary judgment and dismissal of Vivos’ eviction action, asserting that the lease was void because Vivos’ ability to modify the community rules and regulations rendered the lease illusory, meaning the promises contained in the agreement were not real. The circuit court granted summary judgment in Sindorf’s favor, holding that “the 99-year lease is an illusory contract that [Vivos] can unilaterally modify the terms of at any time with no recourse for [Sindorf].” Vivos appeals the circuit court’s order, raising the following issue: 1. Whether a lease containing a provision that requires a lessee to comply with community rules and regulations and that reserves in the lessor the ability to modify those rules and regulations from time to time with 30 days’ notice renders the lease illusory.)

Morriss v. Morriss, #31118 (Audio of Oral Argument before South Dakota Supreme Court) (Briefing - Opinion)

Matter of Estate of Ager, 2024 S.D. 55, 11 N.W.3d 878 (Audio of Oral Argument before South Dakota Supreme Court) (briefing - Opinion) (Following denial of motion by wife, who was a beneficiary of husband's estate, to remove husband's daughter as personal representative of the estate, which occurred during period in which administration of the estate was unsupervised, wife filed petition for supervised administration of the estate. Shortly thereafter, daughter filed a motion for confirmation of a specific devise relating to proceeds of a sale of storage units husband had owned and sold prior to his death. The trial court entered an order granting wife's motion for supervised administration and, approximately two months later, denied daughter's motion for confirmation of the specific devise. Daughter filed a notice of appeal, and wife filed a notice of review seeking review of the decision denying her motion to remove daughter as personal representative.)

​Estate of Ager, #30501,#30604, Dismissed (Strawn)

​Ager v. Coyle, 10 N.W.3d 827 (S.D. 2024)

​State v. LaPointe, #30658, 9-30-2024 Affirmed (Day)

​State v. Tisher, #30337, 10-10-2023 Affirmed (Krull)

​State v. See, #30325, 10-10-2023 Affirmed (Day)

​State v. Babcock, 2020 S.D. 71, 952 N.W.2d 750 (Defendant was convicted in the Circuit Court, Fourth Judicial Circuit, Butte County, Michael W. Day, J., of two counts of aggravated assault and two counts of simple assault for attacking his former significant other during a fight. Defendant appealed.)

​Goin v. Houdashelt, 2020 S.D. 32, 945 N.W.2d 349 (Former employee of kombucha bar brought a small claims court unpaid wages action, which was removed. After a bench trial, the Circuit Court, Circuit Court, Seventh Judicial Circuit, Pennington County, Jane W. Pfeifle, J., ruled in favor of employee on merits but denied her request for attorney fees under removal statute. Employee appealed.)

​State v. Overstreet, #29268, 11-23-2020 Affirmed (Day)

​State v. Davis, #29243, 8-31-2020 Affirmed (Day)

​State v. Piekkola, #29049 and #29050, 12-13-2019 Affirmed (Day)